From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB50BB81 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 05:53:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iB94rlls011960 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 05:53:47 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA13450 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 05:53:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iB94riSo026459 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 05:53:46 +0100 Received: from localhost (suiren [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iB94rhHx004111; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:53:43 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:53:29 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20041209.135329.123726097.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Type constraints From: Jacques Garrigue In-Reply-To: <1102561644.2611.2.camel@pelican.wigram> References: <41B6F610.8000507@inria.fr> <20041208.232322.07401394.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <1102561644.2611.2.camel@pelican.wigram> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.0.64 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41B7DA5B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41B7DA59.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 coq:01 coq:01 compiler:01 assertions:01 typing:01 jacques:01 jacques:01 modules:01 constraints:01 garrigue:03 garrigue:03 bugs:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: From: skaller > On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 01:23, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > > > Yet, modules are strange beasts for typing, so I wouldn't add the code > > before thinking it through. > > I am curious as to the status of COQ support for verifying > assertions about proposed changes to the type system. > > For example supposing you did 'think it through' and it > seemed right, would you be able to then extend an > existing COQ proof and attempt to prove your thinking > mechanically? Unfortunately, I'm afraid we are still pretty far from that. Supposing we could describe all the properties we need in Coq (probably possible, but far from easy), a very long and harduous proof is waiting. If there is a breakthrough, I would be most happy to check everything, as I know there are bugs in the compiler. I just discovered a stupid unsoundness today. Jacques Garrigue